Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
European Union – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's patent applications were deemed abandoned due to procedural issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner argues the controller lacks power to condone delay; courts can correct procedural app errors. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court reviews the mandatory and non-extendable deadlines in patent application processes. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. legal cases affirm that abandonment requires a conscious act, not mere procedural lapses. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 5. court emphasizes the importance of intention in abandonment cases, restoring applic evidence. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These two writ petitions, W.P.(C)-IPD-5-2022 & W.P.(C)-IPD-6-2022 have been filed by the Petitioner-the European Union, represented by the European Commission located at Brussels, Belgium. The Petitioner is seeking setting aside of orders dated 21st January, 2019 and 30th September, 2019, passed by the Controller General of Patents. Vide the said orders, two patent applications bearing nos. 11123/DELNP/2012 and
Court may allow reinstatement of patent applications deemed abandoned due to patent agent's negligence if applicant shows no intent to abandon and diligent follow-up.
The Controller does not have the power to extend the time for filing a response to the FER under Section 21 of the Act and Rule 24B of the Rules. However, the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction....
An appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 21(1), which deems a patent application abandoned if the applicant fails to comply with all r....
The court ruled that a patent application cannot be deemed abandoned due to an error by the applicant's agent unless intentional abandonment is proven.
Rule 22 of Patent Rules validly extinguishes patent rights for non-compliance with statutory deadlines, affirming the necessity of strict adherence to filing timelines.
The Registrar of Trade Marks cannot condone delay in review applications beyond the period prescribed by Trade Marks Rules, affirming adherence to statutory timelines.
The duty of the ld. Asst. Controller to consider the objections and pass a reasoned order, and the purpose of Rule 28(7) of the Patent Rules, 2003 in capturing the submissions made during the course ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
